Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

No scientist would ever claim they "know science very well". A PhD is barely enough to start to understand it at all, let alone "very well". You're an arrogant little fuck ain't ya. Now back to your studies before the atheists get blamed for you failing out.

I haven't failed a class in my life. And how am I arrogant? Because I think a physicist who revolutionized the history of science knows more than I do about science? Because I claim he knows more than the people here? How does that make me arrogant? Honestly what are you talking about?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:09 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:25 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

I would be willing to bet that there are people here who have studied Kuhn (and Popper and other philosophers of science) in more depth than you have, and who understand him at least as well as you do, if not better. And, as Girly already pointed out, there are real live working scientists here, and probably a few real live philosophers too. You're talking down to the wrong people.

You see that's the problem. I'm not talking down to anyone except for Bucky Ball. He's the only one who formed a conclusion about Kuhn before he even opened one of Kuhn's works. He went straight for Wikipedia and misunderstood a single paragraph just so he could refute me. That behavior is indicative of someone who views debate like a contest instead of an exchange of ideas. It's pathetic and I reserve the right to talk down to people who constantly insult others but, when pressed, fail to deliver anything of value.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:16 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:25 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:15 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No I don't think that. Nor did I claim to think that. I do claim that Thomas Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here does. His understanding of philosophy of science was revolutionary.

I would be willing to bet that there are people here who have studied Kuhn (and Popper and other philosophers of science) in more depth than you have, and who understand him at least as well as you do, if not better. And, as Girly already pointed out, there are real live working scientists here, and probably a few real live philosophers too. You're talking down to the wrong people.

Also, there are people who've gone much farther into Kuhn's work than I have. Historians of science are a great example.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:16 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:09 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:25 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would be willing to bet that there are people here who have studied Kuhn (and Popper and other philosophers of science) in more depth than you have, and who understand him at least as well as you do, if not better. And, as Girly already pointed out, there are real live working scientists here, and probably a few real live philosophers too. You're talking down to the wrong people.

You see that's the problem. I'm not talking down to anyone except for Bucky Ball. He's the only one who formed a conclusion about Kuhn before he even opened one of Kuhn's works. He went straight for Wikipedia and misunderstood a single paragraph just so he could refute me. That behavior is indicative of someone who views debate like a contest instead of an exchange of ideas. It's pathetic and I reserve the right to talk down to people who constantly insult others but, when pressed, fail to deliver anything of value.

Sorry, but you have been talking down to all of us for this entire thread (and the other thread). You have shown no willingness to debate anything, or to even consider changing your views. All you've done is make assertions, as if you know so much more than we do, and how dare we question you. And then you claim that Kuhn "knows more about science than anyone here". How could you possibly know that? You don't know anyone here. I have nothing against Kuhn, but he's not some God who can't be questioned. There are undoubtedly many people on earth who know as much or more about science as Kuhn does -- and some of them might be on this forum, for all you know. Stop being so arrogant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
09-02-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:17 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 07:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And science doesn't operate on self-correction for new data.

Yes, it does. Kuhn does not challenge this. He simply offers an alternative characterization of the way in which this functions.

(09-02-2017 07:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it's great that you don't care about reality but some of us do. Solipsism is a waste of time. We're not talking about solipsism. We're talking about skepticism.

Well, no. You're talking about solipsism, or something close enough to it as to make no difference. You are merely calling it skepticism, because you have not actually defined your terms properly and don't understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the nature of the universe.

I haven't mentioned solipsism in my arguments. I'm talking about skepticism. I didn't confuse the definitions. I think you did. http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 10:17 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You're talking about solipsism, or something close enough to it as to make no difference. You are merely calling it skepticism, because you have not actually defined your terms properly and don't understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the nature of the universe.

I haven't mentioned solipsism in my arguments. I'm talking about skepticism.

(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The skeptic can ask questions like "how do you know what works". They can ask how you are able to falsify anything if you can't verify anything. If the pragmatists answer to these questions is simply that their system works, then they have begged the question. They have assumed they can use their senses to show that something is true about reality external to themselves... This opens the door for skepticism. If you cannot verify your own or anything's physical existence, then you can't even begin to argue about the physical.

Bolding mine.

(09-02-2017 10:17 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You're talking about solipsism, or something close enough to it as to make no difference. You are merely calling it skepticism, because you have not actually defined your terms properly and don't understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the nature of the universe.

Please read before responding.

You do not understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the existence of other objects, because your grasp of semantics is poor. This leads you to argue that skepticism necessarily leads to a position functionally indistinguishable from solipsism, when this is not the case.

You do not understand semantics, skepticism, or materialism well enough to make the arguments you are attempting to.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
09-02-2017, 11:29 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:09 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You see that's the problem. I'm not talking down to anyone except for Bucky Ball. He's the only one who formed a conclusion about Kuhn before he even opened one of Kuhn's works. He went straight for Wikipedia and misunderstood a single paragraph just so he could refute me. That behavior is indicative of someone who views debate like a contest instead of an exchange of ideas. It's pathetic and I reserve the right to talk down to people who constantly insult others but, when pressed, fail to deliver anything of value.

Sorry, but you have been talking down to all of us for this entire thread (and the other thread). You have shown no willingness to debate anything, or to even consider changing your views. All you've done is make assertions, as if you know so much more than we do, and how dare we question you. And then you claim that Kuhn "knows more about science than anyone here". How could you possibly know that? You don't know anyone here. I have nothing against Kuhn, but he's not some God who can't be questioned. There are undoubtedly many people on earth who know as much or more about science as Kuhn does -- and some of them might be on this forum, for all you know. Stop being so arrogant.

Again you call me arrogant? I simply don't understand what you mean by the word if you think I'm arrogant by saying someone else knows more than me and you. But I do agree that it was a statement from idolatry and assumption. I don't know what makes you think I'm unwilling to change my mind though. Are you not willing to consider that I'm right? It seems to me that is the hallmark of ideological immutability: being incapable of considering that your opponent is right. I change my beliefs constantly. I grew up into moderate conservative Christianity. I became an atheist when I was thirteen. I debated on the side of atheism and materialism for years. Not a day goes by where I don't modify a belief or expel an assumption. The fact that your arguments haven't changed my position doesn't imply I'm unwilling to change.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:27 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I haven't mentioned solipsism in my arguments. I'm talking about skepticism.

(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The skeptic can ask questions like "how do you know what works". They can ask how you are able to falsify anything if you can't verify anything. If the pragmatists answer to these questions is simply that their system works, then they have begged the question. They have assumed they can use their senses to show that something is true about reality external to themselves... This opens the door for skepticism. If you cannot verify your own or anything's physical existence, then you can't even begin to argue about the physical.

Bolding mine.

(09-02-2017 10:17 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You're talking about solipsism, or something close enough to it as to make no difference. You are merely calling it skepticism, because you have not actually defined your terms properly and don't understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the nature of the universe.

Please read before responding.

You do not understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the existence of other objects, because your grasp of semantics is poor. This leads you to argue that skepticism necessarily leads to a position functionally indistinguishable from solipsism, when this is not the case.

You do not understand semantics, skepticism, or materialism well enough to make the arguments you are attempting to.

No skepticism is an epistemology centered around doubt. Solipsism is the belief that no other minds exist. Skepticism can lead to solipsism but I never said or implied they were identical. I posted the links so you would understand how I'm defining them. And I understand materialism very well.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:29 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Sorry, but you have been talking down to all of us for this entire thread (and the other thread). You have shown no willingness to debate anything, or to even consider changing your views. All you've done is make assertions, as if you know so much more than we do, and how dare we question you. And then you claim that Kuhn "knows more about science than anyone here". How could you possibly know that? You don't know anyone here. I have nothing against Kuhn, but he's not some God who can't be questioned. There are undoubtedly many people on earth who know as much or more about science as Kuhn does -- and some of them might be on this forum, for all you know. Stop being so arrogant.

Again you call me arrogant? I simply don't understand what you mean by the word if you think I'm arrogant by saying someone else knows more than me and you. But I do agree that it was a statement from idolatry and assumption. I don't know what makes you think I'm unwilling to change my mind though. Are you not willing to consider that I'm right? It seems to me that is the hallmark of ideological immutability: being incapable of considering that your opponent is right. I change my beliefs constantly. I grew up into moderate conservative Christianity. I became an atheist when I was thirteen. I debated on the side of atheism and materialism for years. Not a day goes by where I don't modify a belief or expel an assumption. The fact that your arguments haven't changed my position doesn't imply I'm unwilling to change.

You're arrogant because you act as if you know more than anyone else. You don't discuss, you pontificate. We're not a bunch of children that you can lecture to. You might want to consider the possibility that some people here know more than you do, and act accordingly.

Also: if you think that language is mathematics, try reading some Shakespeare, or even better, dip into James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Language is a wonderfully mutable thing -- it's nothing like mathematics. Logicians invented symbolic logic precisely because language is much too slippery and imprecise for logical argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:You do not understand what skepticism actually leads us to conclude about the existence of other objects, because your grasp of semantics is poor. This leads you to argue that skepticism necessarily leads to a position functionally indistinguishable from solipsism, when this is not the case.

You do not understand semantics, skepticism, or materialism well enough to make the arguments you are attempting to.

No skepticism is an epistemology centered around doubt. Solipsism is the belief that no other minds exist. Skepticism can lead to solipsism

No, it can't. Nothing can lead to solipsism, because solipsism is incoherent.

The fact that you think that skepticism can lead to solipsism is a demonstration of your poor grasp on semantics, as well as the details of both positions. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and at length.

(09-02-2017 11:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And I understand materialism very well.

You demonstrably do not, because you consistently fail to understand what it says about minds. You instead post things like "liking one type of music over another implies dualism", or "materialism cannot deal with the existence of minds", and so on.

You can say that you understand these things all you like, but your responses continually show this to not be the case. And there is nothing wrong with this - showing an interest in things you do not understand is a good thing - but you need to stop assuming that you already understand things when the people who actually study them are continually forced to correct you.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: